The whole point of red-light cameras is to improve driver safety by reducing red-light running, right?

West Palm Beach has already been running red-light cameras at four city intersections, and a partial police review of those locations showed that crashes have doubled since the installation of the red-light cameras.

More crashes, and the vendor’s losing money, too, because so far the cost of the operation is outstripping the income generated by the insufficient number of drivers who are snagged for the $158 citations.

The Palm Beach Post says the city’s camera business has an economy-of-scale problem. The $19,000-a-month labor costs of city workers to handle the action at a small number of intersections is too expensive. So what do you think the city chose to do?

It announced that there will be 25 new intersections in the city that will soon sport these cash collection sites. The city’s investing $247,000 in its traffic-ticket venture — all in the name of doing the right thing.

That's right. They've had an increase in crashes but with more lights, --they've got their fingers crossed-- they just might turn a profit even if there are some nagging injuries or fatalities to worry about.

“We’re really doing this for the right reason, which is safety,” Mayor Jeri Muoio said, believe it or not, with a straight face.

But, there may be good news for Florida motorists. On the other side of the state, attorney Peyton Hyslop has a perfect record in cases defending clients who fight red-light camera tickets.

Hyslop is a former Hernando County judge. He told the Tampa Bay Times that the way the red-light camera program is run denies vehicle owners of their right to due process.

According to Hyslop, citations are sent to the owner of the vehicle without regard to who was behind the wheel when the infraction occurred. In addition, he believes that issuing a citation based solely on photographic and video evidence goes against the state's basic rules of evidence.

A police officer who issues a normal red-light ticket can be cross-examined in court about the circumstances of the incident, Hyslop explained. But that can't happen with a time-stamped photo or video.

"It's directly contrary to what is allowed, and that, I believe, makes that evidence inadmissible," Hyslop said.

So far, every judge has ruled in his favor on these cases. I have a feeling his office is going to be getting a lot of phone calls from West Palm Beach.

I saw a T-bone crash occur a couple of months ago at about 9pm. The driver that got hit, was occupied with his phone. I slowed down to stop at the red light, but he didn't even apply his brakes, went through the intersection and was t-boned by an SUV that couldn't stop or swerve, traveling about 30 mph.

Had a CAMERA been at the intersection - there would have been video of the incident. Other than that, the camera could not have contributed to whether this accident occurred or not.

How does a camera increase safety? That is such BS. A camera RECORDS an incident. A camera does not PREVENT something from happening, nor can it possibly contribute to safety. A red light camera will not catch someone driving 100mph through a green light, or a drunk driver weaving through the intersection at a green light. The camera will not stop the T-bone crash that occurs because someone wasn't paying attention and went through a red light that has been in effect long enough to allow traffic to flow in the other direction. The camera WILL however, catch someone that misjudged a yellow light and barely transgressed the red light......and then a couple of seconds pass before the opposing direction gets a green light, people will allow the intersection to clear, and proceed safely.

The red light cameras are "GOTCHA" devices that prey on those who barely miss the yellow, and aren't really posing any safety threat to traffic.

But lets be clear - the camera just takes a picture, and weeks later, the hapless driver receives a letter in the mail. I don't see how this is anything other than a revenue generating device. You want SAFETY? Create jobs and employ traffic officers at intersections. The sight of a police car DOES contribute to safety.

As I have already posted, RLCs do not increase MVCs. It is the poor/illegal driving habits of far too many drivers out there that are the cause of these MVCs. If you still think that RLCs cause MVCs, please tell me how many people have ever successfully used this as their defence when they have been charged with 1 or more of the following:1) following too close2) speeding3) not paying attention to the traffic around you4) not adjusting your driving to the road conditions

To those who are saying that RLCs are mainly a cash grab, you're also wrong. They don't grab any cash except from those who break the law. They'll never get any $ from me because I don't run reds.

Here is the theory behind RLCs. If you have common sense you don't need any law to tell you to stop at reds. However, you can't teach common sense. Therefore the theory is that if you receive enough RLC tickets eventually the pain from your wallet will migrate to your brain & you'll finally realize that if you stop running reds that you'll get to keep your $ to spend on things that you want. This is similar to how you train a dog with the reward system.

People keep insisting that RLCs cause MVCs. Please tell me how they do this?

But first, consider this. Do you do any of the following:1) follow too close2) speed3) not pay attention to the traffic around you4) not adjust your driving to the road conditions.

Now that you have considered the above 4 points, go ahead & explain how RLCs cause MVCs.

I can legally stop my car anywhere, anytime, for any number of reasons. If you aren't guilty of any of the above 4, then you won't rear end me. If you are guilty of any or all of the above 4, then you very well might hit me. Don't try to blame a RLC for your poor/illegal driving habits.

Great how the article notes the mayors comment was made with a "straight face". Have to wonder if the punishment was something other than a fine, would these cities be so eager to have this cameras?And of course accidents could increaase. Either drivers will lock em up trying to stop, getting rear ended, or as usual speeding up trying to make it through on the yellow light and getting t-boned.

One likely reason: FL has a lot of VERY old drivers. And I'll bet a lot of them hit the brakes hard at these intersections when the light turns yellow. Then the following drivers hit the ones who stopped suddenly.

Red light cameras serve two purposes to catch idiot redlight runners and to generate revenue for that local gov't the sudden stops by people trying to avoid a ticket and causing accidents is beacuse they misjudge the lights timing and are not paying attention those drivers are either in a hurry (late for work or need to pick up the kids from day care or school)or texting. change the behavior, drive safe and defensively. a message brought to by the .............................LOL

It would make more sense to put a police officer at the intersection during peak traffic hours when accidents have a higher probability of occurring. That wouldn't cost as much as having the cameras 24 hours a day and paying the contractor. Automatic tickets generated by cameras sound like a good way to generate revenue as well as enforce the law. However, as the old adage goes, "if it sounds too good to be true it probably is".

This has been known for years, three or four here in Kalif. The money from citizens is too much temptation to tax/spend gov't. The contractors operating the systems also get a percentage of the take. Many opportunities to fudge the results.